February 13, 2025 - Associated Industries of Missouri President and CEO Ray McCarty testified this week in support of a bill that defines "sex" for purposes of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) as excluding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." The bill is an effort to protect smaller businesses against frivolous lawsuits by restoring the original definition of "sex" when the MHRA was enacted.
Senate Bill 76 (Schnelting) was heard in the Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee on February 11. Associated Industries of Missouri was the only business advocacy group to testify in support of the bill. No business advocacy groups testified against the bill.
Associated Industries of Missouri (AIM) encourages employers to enact policies prohibiting all discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Such policies should prohibit harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability or veteran status of employees or applicants. AIM supports this legislation that clarifies that the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Missouri Human Rights Act would not apply to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity because the Court opined sexual orientation and gender identity were included in prohibitions against "sex" discrimination which is prohibited by that federal law. This bill makes changes to the state equivalent of that federal law, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Differences between the two laws:
1. The federal law only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The MHRA applies to employers with 6 or more employees. By including this definition in the MHRA, smaller employers would be protected from lawsuits for alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
2. State courts hear cases involving the Missouri Human Rights Act and federal courts hear cases involving the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"Gender identity" is defined by the Human Rights Campaign as:
"one's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth."
Because gender identity involves a person's concept of themselves, there may be no outward expression of this personal perception. This leaves employers in a dangerous position. If they take action against an employee, or another employee makes an inappropriate comment and the employee claims they were discriminated against because of their gender identity, the employer must defend themselves against a discrimination claim when they may not have had any clue the person's perception was different than their sex at birth. We view this as another way for clever attorneys to file lawsuits against employers. Such lawsuits may already be filed against employers of 15 or more employees, but this bill would lessen the chance of these lawsuits against employers with more than 6 and fewer than 15 employees. The smallest of employers, many of whom may not provide adequate employee training or supervision, would be potential victims of such lawsuits without the changes made by this bill.
The bill was heard by the committee, but no further action was taken. We will update our members if/when this bill progresses through the legislative process.
Comments